Comments on: Jolie’s Journalism

By: Richard F.

Richard F. — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:34:26 +0000

One’s moral authority is, q.e.d., rooted in the moral basis of that authority. One would not expect (nor does one find) porn stars lending their names to “worthy” causes. How does a Jolie (or a Fonda, or a Penn for that matter) differ from say, an Asia Carrera? In degree only. The career foundations of all four are rooted in fantasies of sexual titillation, violence, or pretended but impossible wish fulfillments. The kind of attention they attract to issues lasts only so much longer as that of a streaker at a football game–and the moral basis for taking them seriously is about the same.

This is as it should be. They are not Mother Teresa, nor popes, nor great theologians, philosophers or thinkers of any stripe; nor do they wield power backed by voters’ consent, or are hallowed by generations or have stood the test of any time period longer than a decade; in short, they lack the legitimacy of either heaven or earth, and for Mr. Kirchick to lavish public space on this airless topic is best of evidence of a news-challenged week.

By: reader

reader — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:15:59 +0000

Has anyone else noticed a slippage in the quality of the Economist of late? More than that it seems theres a leftward drift in its coverage too, just look at their fawning Hillary coverage (and lack of coverage of the past 2 weeks of bad headlines for her). A younger generation of British leftie journalists seems to be taking over the paper, stamping it with their trademark in-your-face atheism and condescending anti-Americanism.

By: WLT

WLT — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:18:57 +0000

So what are the chances of holding the Sudanese government accountable? None. As long as China and Russia have veto powers on the Security Council and that we continue to rely on that institution for our collective security.

By: Eric Price

Eric Price — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:23:24 +0000

While it is admirable that a celebrity would deign to take up the cause of the oppressed, appraising one as a solution to diplomatic failure is absurd. Ms. Jolie may have a sincere interest in the issues she seeks press for, but when fame is involved in diplomatic issues, personal bias and ignorance are bound to handicap the objective. Beyond her ability to attract photographers and fleeting online blurbs, what are her qualifications? Diplomatic activism should not be carried out by media darlings who are attracted to issues as they are to the latest designer accessory. “US Weekly” is not the media vehicle to bring awareness of serious issues to the public. I wager that those interested in reading an article about Darfur due to Jolie being mentioned are more interested in what she is wearing or the status of her famous marriage and orphan collecting. To suggest that Angelina Jolie is a solution to the problem is as misguided as suggesting Paris Hilton become a diplomatic foil to fight Iranian aggression

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:55:26 +0000

“I hope that the Sudanese government…”

I also hope that Bill Gates recognizes me as his long lost brother and that Koby Bryant is terrified of going one on one with me on a basketball court. Angelina Jolie almost certainly opposes our efforts in Iraq and slimes the Bush administration every chance she gets. The reality is that the dishonestly pacifist Democratic Party isn’t going to do anything to help the victims of Africa. Even conservative Republicans hesitate to get involved. Nonetheless, the GOP is the only chance Jolie has of getting something accomplished. One can only hope she realizes that in the near future.